Monday, March 18, 2013

Here are some notes on the history of the word misandry and its variants, misandrist, misandrous and misandric. There has been a great deal of confusion at to the origin and first appearance of the word.

Newly discovered uses of the words in the nineteenth century – detailed below – will help clear up the confusion that crops up in online discussions of this subject.

Each of these dates of earliest known appearance will probably be pushed back to an earlier one as research continues.

***

SUMMARY of earliest appearances (known as of Feb. 7, 2012) included in the notes below:

Misandric (English) – 1898

Misandrie (German) – 1803

Misandry (English) – 1878

Misandrist (English) – 1871

Misandrous (English) –1871

***

Note that in the references listed below that “misandry” is employed with reference to feminist ideology in known instances dating from 1888 (referring to Susan B. Anthony) and in 1938, with reference to “feminist ideas. Also “misandry” is included in a dictionary of psychology in 1930, which offers a diagnostic opinion.

1871 – misandrous – “In many of the cephaopods already mentioned, the only specimens ever captured belonged to the female sex, and seemed to pass, like the Amazons of old, an experience which may be termed a misandrous life.”[John George Wood, The illustrated natural history, Reptiles, Fishes, Molluscs, &c., Volume 3, London: George Routledge & Sons, 1871, p. 365]

1871 – misandrist – “We cannot, indeed, term her an absolute misandrist, as she fully admits the possibility, in most cases at least, of the reclamation of men from their naturally vicious and selfish state, though at the cost of so much trouble and vexation of spirit to women, that it is not quite clear whether she does not regard their existence as at best a mitigated evil.” [From review of novel “Blanche Seymour” (anonymous), The Spectator, London, Apr. 1, 1871, p. 359]

1878 – misandry – dictionary entry on the prefix; “MIS, MISO.—1. (Gr. fitaelv, to hate ;) in a number of compounds, as misagathy, hatred of the good; …”[Charles P. Krauth, A vocabulary of the philosophical sciences, Sheldon & Company, New York, 1878, p. 770]

1888 – misandry – “…nor shall I speak of philanthropy, nor philandry, much less of their opposites, misanthropy, misogyny, misandry, for the last of which terms the synonym Miss Anthony is now in common use.” [From: Announcement of the 15th dinner, on Apr. 26, 1888, of the Six O’Clock Club (reporting an accredited speech from the May 24, 1888 14th dinner); text reprinted in: Frank Lester Ward, Glimpses of the Cosmos, Vol. IV, G. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1915, p. 128]

1888 – misandry – “… a little misandry from some constitutional man-hater …” Considering the source – the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union – it is reasonable to suppose that the author employing this early use of the word was a woman. [“W. C. T. U. Notes. - By The Local W. C. T U.” from Christian Standard (Cincinnati, Oh.), The New Era (Humeston (Io.), May 16, 1888, p. 8]

1898 – misandric – “Such a being – the antipodes of the other, the sexless, the misandric kind of ‘new woman’ – has not yet succeeded in harmonizing her essential femininity with her claims to freedom.” [from long book review of novel, Ethel Colburn Mayne, The Clearer Vision; “Novels and Novelists; ‘The Clearer Vision,’” The Echo (London, England), Nov. 16, 1898, p. 1]

1898 – misandry – This date appears on the internet site Grammarphobia as a date of first use of “misandry,” yet no citation is given: “‘Misandry,’ defined as ‘the hatred of males; hatred of men as a sex,’ was first recorded in 1898.” [Patricia T. O’Conner & Stewart Kellerman, Grammarphobia.com, May 29, 2010]

1909 – misandry – “circa 1909” is given by the current Miriam-Webster Dictionary as the date of the first appearance of “misandry,” but no citation is given.

1928 – misandry – “Her general accusation against society is free from the perversion of misandry, which distorts the more querulous of modem feminist arguments. (“Misandry” is not in the New English Dictionary, but if it did not exist before, ...” [Harper’s magazine: Volume 157, 1928 (precise location of quote to be determined, from google books search, snippet view)]

1930 – misandrist – “The character traits of the misogamist, misogynist, and misandrist are largely the result of environmental factors rather than heredity.” [The University of Iowa studies in psychology: Volume 40, Issue 1, p. 172]

1946 – misandry – [James Smith,“Much Ado About Nothing,” Scrutiny Quarterly, No. 4, Spring 1946]referenced as earliest known instance: Oxford English Dictionary: A Supplement, Vol. II (H-N); publ. 1976]; a 1999 reference to this instance: “But there have always been women who have despised men. Why, then, wasn’t it until 1946 that an equivalent word for hostility toward males appeared? And why, once the word misandry surfaced (in “Scrutiny”, a defunct British journal of literary criticism), did it sink quickly into near oblivion?” [Ellin Schoen Brockman, “In The Battle Of The Sexes, This Word Is A Weapon,” The New York Times, The Week In Review, Jul. 25, 1999]. A website called Cha Cha, lists 1656 as the earliest use of “misandry,” a misreading of Brockman’s article, which gives that year as the origin of “misogyny.”

1952 – misandrist – From a question & answer newspaper column: “Q. Is a misanthropist a hater of MEN specifically? J.G.M. – A. The word can be used in this sense, but its more usual significance is a hater of mankind. There is another more specific word, misandrist, which means a hater of male human beings.” [Haskin, “Questions, Answers,” Long Beach Press-Telegram (Ca.), Oct. 29, 1952, p. A-19]

1962 – misandry – Literary critics were using the word at least by 1962. Here are two instances: “So it seems to me with Sylvia Plath’s misandry. For one thing, no living man could measure up to the colossus that bestrode the fantasy world of her ...” [Nancy Hunter Steiner, A closer look at Ariel: a memory of Sylvia Plath, 1962, p. 17]‎; “From it we could have naturalized ‘misandry,’ as easily as ‘misogyny.’ But we have not. Nor, so far as I know, has any other modern European tongue.” [Frank Laurence Lucas, The drama of Ibsen and Strindberg, 1828-1906, 1962, p. 327]

1972 – misandry – At this late date, the word was still uncommon enough to allow writers to imaging that when they use it, they are its inventor: “The extreme misogyny of a Schopenhauer, the extreme misandry (I have had to invent a new word, which is surely a remarkable fact) of Valerie Solanas, …” [Don Cupitt, Crisis of moral authority, 1972, p. 63]

1983 – misandry – “Unlike misogyny, the word misandry does not appear in the OED. But if we continue to have plays like Sarah Daniels’ Masterpieces, then clearly a place will have to be found in the next supplement.” [Francis King, Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 1983]

1997 – A new myth. The following confused and self-contradictory claim, which by ignoring the qualifier “most” – becomes, in 2011, a source for the myth (repeated in Wikipedia) that the word “misandry” is of recent origin: “It is notable that although a word for the hatred exists – misandry – it wasn’t included in most dictionaries until very recently. The closest the English language comes to the hatred of males is misanthropy, which actually refers to the hatred of people in general. Once again, patriarchal culture identifies males as the standard of humanity while women are marginalized as a hate-worthy ‘other.’” [Allan G. Johnson, Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy, Temple University Press, 1997, p. 267, note 36 to Ch. 3].

2006 – misandry; misandric; misandrist – A new myth: “The word and its variations (misandric, misandrist, et. al) were first used only by the most militant of antifeminists, where even the most published and professional remained outliers in male society.” (Richard Leader, “Misandry: From the Dictionary of Fools,” Oct. 15, 2006, website, Adonis Mirror).

2009 – Taking up the myth invented in Oct. 2006 by Adonis Mirror: “Sorry, Anti-Feminists: There’s No Such Thing as Misandry; its a modern, made-up word that makes you look stupid. and its misogynist as f**k. so stop using it.” The author cites Adonis Mirror.” [Posted by FM, “Sorry, Anti-Feminists: There’s No Such Thing as Misandry,” from website femonade, Aug. 30, 2009]

2010 – misandry – More errors & speculation: The author of a psychology encyclopedia entry mistakenly takes the 1656 date for the earliest appearance of Misogyny” from the Oxford English Dictionary and attaches it to “misandry.” Further he claims that it was in “the early 20th century that the term entered common usage, probably as a response to the growing use of its opposite, misogyny …” [Daniel A. R. Schlorff, encyclopedia entry in “Misandry” in Sex and Society, 2010, Tarreytown, N.Y., p. 540]

2011 – “I’ve now read a bit more on the subject, namely this piece at Adonis Mirror which looks at the etymology of misogyny, misandry and misanthropy. … misandry was invented by antifeminists …” [“Misandry as a myth (an addendum),” The World Is Watching, a blog by Soph, July 23, 2011]

2011 – On Dec. 5, 2011 the entire “Misandry” page on Wikipedia was deleted by a contributor for the stated reason: “No such thing as misandry. To make a page about it is misogynist, and against wikipedia guidelines.” It was soon restored.

2012 – On Jan. 6, 2012, on the Wikipedia “Misandry” page, the phrase referring to “misandry as “a recently coined word” is added.

2012 – The myth that the word misandry is both a) newly concocted and, b) created by men’s rights adherents is repeated on the website Urban Dictionary: “misandry – A term created by a group of straight white men who habitually confuse their “brain” with their anus. …” [viewed Feb. 7, 2012; up/down ratings are: “up” 26,259; “down” 718]

***

Full texts of notable examples are given below:

***

Note: W. C. T. U. = Woman’s Christian Temperance Union

FULL TEXT: There has been a great gathering of devout women from many civilized nations at Washington – the first World’s Council of Women. They discussed many questions of vital importance to society besides the prominent one of female suffrage. Notwithstanding the manifest tendency of the press to ignore it, or treat it cavalierly or banteringly, it has attracted universal attention, and will profoundly affect the thought and sentiment of Christendom—more even, perhaps, than the leaders of the movement imagine. Although some of our brawny statesmen at the Capital would gladly put Cranks upon the last one of them, the utterances and aims of those woman betrayed us high social intelligence, as clear vision of the signs of the times, as enlightened interest in public affairs, as much practical sense, courage and conviction, as any assembly of men which has gathered in our day; while in the matter of the purely moral – the constant appeal from might to right, from policy to principal, no gathering of men has ever equaled this Council.

If there cropped out a little of hobbyism from some hobbyist from Hobbyville; a little misandry from some constitutional man-hater; some foolish notion of making men and women equal by making them something else than men and women; or even a taint flavor of the spirit of anarchy which would destroy the domestic institution for the sake of freedom, it was only the frothy scum upon a great boiling cauldron in which the mingled elements, the “principal spices” of the oil of holy ointment,” are combining and purifying themselves against the anointing of humanity for its real priesthood to God. If our lawmakers did not see much to interest them In this great Council of women, we will not be surprised when we remember that the only human beings among us who have received “the thanks of Congress” are four warriors. No others in their estimation (so barbarous are we yet) deserve an expression of a nation’s gratitude— yet Clara Barton has been with us a good while.

There is one “evidence of the failure of Prohibition” which the advocates of High License and “Restriction” have not made much clamor over. In a portion of Iowa, including a large majority of all the counties in the state, where there were 3,000 saloons when the Prohibition law went into effect (as the Restrictionists would say) them are still twenty-four open saloons. The whole Restrictionist crew have been crowing over the fact, so-claimed, that High License has closed a few supernumerary saloons in Philadelphia, but they can find nothing to crow about in the 2,976 out of 3,000 abolished in Town. Astonshing!— Christian Standard.

FULL TEXT: Misandry occasionally has its uses. A Russian lady, Mme. Kaissavow, who died ten years ago in St. Petersburg, would not allow any book written by a man to enter her house. She was. however, a voracious reader and wealthy enough to satisfy her cravings in this direction. On her death her library was found to contain nearly 18,000 volumes — all written by women. This was said at the time to be the most extensive collection of this kind ever formed.

FULL TEXT: Ninety-nine women in every hundred of the unmated wish to be married. What is the proportion, among these spinsters, of perfectly frank women who will confess the wish? (asks a writer in a well-known English journal). I have questioned a large number of unmarried women upon the matter, but only about 50 per cent, admit that they with to change their state of “single blessedness.” Now, I am convinced that at -least forty-nine out of these fifty conceal a very sane and perfectly natural longing. Why? Men continually remind us that women are untruthful. In a general sense we have as much respect for honesty in speech as the mass of men. But concerning our deepest emotions we are wont to deceive ourselves and others.

The woman who dares to make the confession, “I am ardently in love,” is al most phenomenal and singular. This in sincerity only deceives very inexperienced and ingenuous persons of either sex. The protestation of indifference to love and marriage is both pathetic and ludicrous, because it masks one of our strongest and most persistent desires.

I can understand the attitude of a young girl in her teens who “finds life a jolly adventure, full of excitement, and has not felt the mysterious spell of love, when she dilates upon the joys of being “heart and fancy free.” But I deny that the average unwedded woman of mature years, and especially after 30, wishes to spend the remainder of her span of life in celibacy. I anticipate the customary rejoinders: “I am perfectly contented with my work,” and “I want to devote all my energy to my art.” Are these pleas ever sincere? I doubt it. There are not so many women-freaks as we women try to believe. And, quite seriously, I insist that the woman who prefers to be an old maid is abnormal.

I cannot discover any gain in this pretence that a single life is immensely preferable to marriage. Why do so many women cultivate this affectation? The learned term for a dislike of matrimony is “misandry,” and the truly misandrous women are extremely rare. What is the motive that impels so many of my sex to feign hostility to love and conjugality, and to pose as abnormalities? My own theory is that we Britons are a race of repressed sentimentalists. We are very susceptible to “the tender passion,” but we are childishly ashamed of the fact. We look upon loving as a weakness, or a kind of malady, and being very robust people, we shrink from an aspersion of mental feebleness or illness.

FULL TEXT: Louisville, Ky. – Once there was a press agent who wanted a special term to describe the obvious charms of a client, a television personality. He groped in vain for the word until his need came to the attention of Dr. Jacob E. Schmidt, who promptly coined one – “callicolpia.” It means having a large and shapely bosom.

Delighted, the press agent forked over $275 to Dr. Schmidt, a 47-year-old bachelor who says “ I don’t know whether I’m “a doctor or a lexicographer or both. It’s like deciding which you love most—your mother or father .”

He writes a syndicated column on words, and articles for magazines. He helped proof read an electronics text. He also is a talented artist, and has won gold medals for scholastic excellence. And he tested all the inorganic substances in the Pharmacopoeia of the United States, the standard drug test.

His hobby for the last 30 years has been his “Dictionary in Reverse.” Several metal cabinets are filled with index cards on which he has made about 180,000 cross references of meanings for 65,000 accepted words.

It will become a 640-page book next year. It works this way:

Suppose you need a word to describe a thought, like, “person who hates women.” In the forthcoming book, you list the key words in your idea – person, hates, or women. Under at least one of them, you would find the exact word which has eluded you – misogynist. The category beginning, “a person who . . .” has 2,000 entries.

“I don’t think he will be a best seller,” he said. Reminiscing , he said “as long as I can remember , when I heard an apt word used, I envied the person who could employ it correctly.

He says he understands about 145,000 words, though he can use only about 65,000 of them. There’s where the idea of the ‘Dictionary in Reverse’ began,” he added.

He believes he is probably the world’s lending word-coiner, having contributed 600 to Webster’s Dictionary. He knows six languages, including Sanskrit. They provide root words. He has supplied special words for advertising agencies, famous people, writers and movie producers.

But Dr. Schmidt is most proud of his word “xenoepist.”

That’s because “the English language, with 60,000 words, has no name for one who speaks a foreign language.” It’s “xenoepist.”

Here’s some more of his new words:

“Opsigamist” – one who marries late in life.

“Misotelist” – one who hates to pay taxes.

“Pygosemantics” – a swaying walk, such as Marilyn Monroe’s. In other words, the language of the hips.

“Gynocoaphobia” – a fear of women drivers.

“Innuptaphobia” – one afraid of remaining a bachelor or spinster.

The word most frequently asked of him comes from women who want a term for “one who hates men. “It’s “misandry.”

A Michigan woman wanted a word to describe President Eisenhower’s facial features, which to her indicated “virility and angelic saintliness.” Ike, thus, is a “viragiast.”

Saturday, March 16, 2013

This
collection includes only female serial killers who were baby-sitters.
It does not include Baby Farmers (child care providers who were
responsible for infants on a 24 hour basis), with the exception of nanny
Gladys Parks.

***

1881 – Margaret Messenger – Cumberland, England – age 14 at
time of apprehension. She drowned 2 children successively.

1889 – Marie Doiselet – Bar-sur-Aube, France – a 13-year-old
baby sat for her neighbor but regarded the task as an annoyance. She smothered
6-month-old baby with a handkerchief, “by placing a handkerchief over the mouth
and nose, and pressing heavily on the chest until suffocation ensued.” A month
later she did the same to that child’s 2 ½ year-old sibling.

1906 – Ida Schnell – Munich, Germany – teenage child-care
provider who had a special technique for murdering babies, “plunging a hairpin into the lower part of the back
of their heads till they ceased to cry.”

1906 – Lillian B. Thornman – York, Pennsylvania – A 15-year
old servant girl murdered a child who was “roasted from head to toe” by placing
the youngster on the stove. After her arrest it was learned she had previously
murdered three other children in the same manner, getting away with the crimes
by having concocting stories of accidents.

1908 – Jeanne Weber – Paris, France – She was obsessed with
strangling children of various ages, and murdered at least ten. Among her
victims were three children of her own; the rest were mostly the children of
relatives. She was caught in the act several times, but got away with murder
with the help of the brilliant men who defended her in court until the day she
was caught in such a flagrant act of violent strangling of a boy she had just
murdered even the “experts” would not be able to employ their sophisticated
theories to save her. After being declared insane and sent to prison, Jeanne
strangled herself to death.

1929 – Gladys Parks – New Jersey – A father of six, found
himself a widower, so he made arrangements with his wife’s cousin to care for
two of the children temporarily. The nanny, however, had taken the kids to use
as pawns in a get-rich-quick scheme, in which she would tell wealthy men -
former lovers - that these children were the result of their affairs. When she
no longer found the arrangement she brutally murdered the children and hid the
bodies.

1956 – Virginia Jaspers – New Haven, Connecticut – A retired
head pediatric nurse killed three babies by shaking them to death because “children
sometimes get on her nerves.” She broke the leg of another child and cause a
head injury to yet another.

1967 – Bessie Reese – Arcadia, Florida – She was suspected of
murdering her first husband and was convicted of murdering her second. She
poisoned 7 children killed at once as she baby-sat for them, killing them all.
Their father, later exonerated, served 21 years in prison for this crime.

1980 – Helen Patricia Moore – Claymore, NSW, Australia –
smothered 3 children and 3 additional children survived her abuse, one of them being rendered blind and unable to walk.

1982 – Christine Laverne Falling – Calhoun & Taylor Counties,
Florida – She murdered at least 5 children. According to her testimony, she had
heard voices that ordered her to kill the babies by placing a blanket over
their faces.

1984 – Lise Jane Turner – Christchurch, New Zealand – 2 own
babies, one other baby; attempted to kill four other babies

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Every
day we in the United States are told that before the rise of the
domestic violence industry in the 1980s domestic violence against women
was largely ignored by police and the courts and was regarded as
acceptable behavior by society. Here are some clippings from
newspapers which can assist us in verifying the truthfulness of such
claims.

EXCERPT:
~ Oppose Whipping Post. ~ The convention voted down by a large majority
President Roosevelt’s recommendation of the whipping-post for
wife-beaters.

[“Women
Tell Of Work Done. - Progress of Fight for Suffrage. - Reports Made at
Portland by Representatives of Various States. - Resolution Protests
Against Statement In England That Roosevelt Opposes Suffrage Extension.”
The Salt Lake Tribune (Ut.), Jul. 2, 1905, p. 4]

This
evidence from a 1905 newspaper contradicts the following, recently
published, claim included in what is widely considered to be a
definitive study of domestic violence. “In the United States, flogging
bills were proposed in twelve states and in the District of Columbia.
Most supporters were eminently respectable – mainly Republican male
lawyers, district attorneys, and grand juries. … They were supported by
suffragist leaders.” (Donald G. Dutton, Rethinking Domestic Violence, (University of Columbia Press, Canada, 2006, p. 10)

* ** * ** *

Christopher
Webster, “Queer Punishments Obtaining in This Country – Borrowed from
Mother England Where They Were Retained for Many Years – Signs of Some
Return to Olden Forms.” Stevens Point Daily Journal (Wi.), Apr. 20,
1905, p. 3

Postcard
bearing the photo upon which the April 20, 1905 illustration is based.
The Delaware pillory was abolished by an act dated Mar. 20, 1905.

In
parts of Kent [England] a quaint old tradition still survives. When a
man is known to be a confirmed wife-beater, his neighbours collect
noiselessly under his window at night and proceed to take and sew the
victim in bag of chaff. The following morning the culprit is asked, to
make a grim pleasantry, “if he has done his thrashing yet.”

Throughout
the period covered in this selection of clippings, courts in the United
States also prosecuted husband beaters – but in much smaller numbers.
While wife beaters were sentenced to flogging as late as 1953, no
mention has so far been found of a woman being sentenced to flogging or
any other form of corporal punishment for the offense of husband
beating.

On HUSBAND BATTERING: Suzanne Steinmetz concluded that "the most unreported crime is not wife beating -- it's husband beating"

In
1977, Steinmetz released results from several studies showing that the
percentage of wives who have used physical violence is higher than the
percentage of husbands, and that the wives' average violence score
tended to be higher, although men were somewhat more likely to cause
greater injury. She also found that women were as likely as men to
initiate physical violence, and that they had similar motives for their
violent acts (Steinmetz, Suzanne K. "The Battered Husband Syndrome"
Victimology 2, 1977-1978, p. 499) See online article “Husband Battering”

To get an idea of just how extreme the distortion of history
is, as it is presented in an ideologically sanitized form by cultural Marxists,
take a look at this brief summary of the period which this post covers in a
highly regarded professional law journal. The judicial beatings of male
abusers, the floggings, the pillorying, the hard labor prison sentences are all
sent down the memory hole by the author, leaving only a discussion of
“oppressive” linguistics to guide the reader’s understanding of what was going
on between 1890 and 1960 in the United States with respect to legal attitudes
towards domestic violence.

••►•◄••

Here's
an academic article which cleverly uses cherry-picked legal language to
give the false impression that domestic violence was not treated as a
serious crime in the past:

“By the 1890s, American courts completely abandoned the idea
that a husband may legally chastise his wife within reasonable limits.

While laws prohibiting chastisement were enacted, they were rarely enforced.
Instead, courts began to ignore domestic violence based on “domestic harmony”
concerns; domestic violence was perceived to be an internal family matter, best
left free from state interference. As one court stated, “We will not inflict
upon society the greater evil of raising the curtain upon domestic privacy, to
punish the lesser evil of trifling violence.” Instead of using the
“hierarchal-based” chastisement language, jurists began to employ “affective
privacy” language. Such language invoked “the feelings and spaces of
domesticity.” More importantly, it translated an antiquated idea the rule of
chastisement into a modern context that felt profoundly reasonable domestic
privacy. By invoking marital- or domestic-privacy justifications, the courts
preserved the system of oppression by changing only the language. These
justifications held firm until the 1960s, when domestic violence once again
became a national issue.” ( p. 970)

•►•◄••►•◄•

The
notion that because some judges in the past wrote about domestic
violence as “a private matter,” we can ignore the well-documented
reality of widespread societal condemnation and prosecution for domestic
violence cases throughout the 19th and 20th centuries can be ignored, appeared in this 2003 article:

“Despite the tremendous toll on both the victims and society, domestic violence was not

recognized
as a public health issue in the US until relatively recently. With the
women’s movement of the 1970s, domestic violence was increasingly
recognized as a public, not a private, issue.” [Amy Farmer and Jill
Tiefenthaler, “Explaining The Recent Decline In Domestic Violence,” Contemporary Economic Policy, No. 21 (2003), pp. 158-172]

•►•◄••►•◄•

Here’s a quote from another hoax article, this time from a mainstream media source, from 1986:

Findlaw claims: “Police
responses to domestic violence have historically been clouded by notions, for
example, the idea that a wife is the "property" of a husband and he
has the right to carry out whatever behavior is necessary to "keep her in
line." This idea and others like it reflect attitudes held by the greater
society. Further aggravating the situation was the perception that domestic
violence is not "real police work," and such disputes are private
matters that should be kept within the household. Prior to 1980, when domestic
situations were brought to the attention of police, calls were often diverted
by dispatchers, given a lower priority, or officers responded to the scene and
departed again as quickly as possible without achieving any type of meaningful
intervention. Laws such as the "rule of thumb" (whereby it was legal
for a husband to beat his wife with a stick not wider than his thumb) were
still on the books until very recent times.” [“Domestic Violence: History of
Police Responses,” FindLaw.com, Mar. 28, 2013]

Response: Much of this has been proven to be false. The rest
is cleverly deceptive: how long “prior to 1980?” Perhaps when police became militarized
in the 1970s the policy was to reduce priorities for domestic violence. But
this was definitely not the case in the 19th century and the first
half of the 20th century. The “attitudes held by the greater society”
have, in throughout the history of the US, been firmly hostile to male domestic
violence offenders. There never has been a single “rule of thumb” statute on
the books.

Findlaw is owned by Westlaw, the largest law publisher in
the world.

•►•◄••►•◄•

Yet another example:

“[O]nly since the 1970s has the criminal justice system
begun to treat domestic violence as a serious crime, not as a private family
matter.”